my client is a sole proprietor attorney operating in a law firm with another atty. the two used to have a partnership, but have since split into two sole proprietorships. the old partnership still has an EIN, and the two atty's contribute to it to pay each's secretary's comp and benefits. each atty covers his secretary in his db plan. is this ok since both secretaries are covered by a db plan even though the atty's are not paying them directly through the sole prop EIN? thanks

This is the classic affiliated service group situation. So, what you have is OK, but does your document appropriately reflect what it should?

That is, the partnership should have adopted both plans, yet eligibility should be worded so the secretaries aren't each in both plans.

410(B) coverage is OK now (100% ratio percentage), but this would need to be monitored closely in the future.

I am not convinced that this is an ASG. It sounds like it might be an expense sharing arrangement. Get a copy of Who's The Employer. (Cheap at twice the price) Read it. If it provides clear guidance on your situation, follow it. If not, hire an attorney to figure it out for you. The author of Who's The Employer is who I would hire. In fact, I have done so. Can't get any better than the source. Caveat: He is also my partner in a computer venture (the PIX BBS) so I am biased. He is still the best.

Or read the excellent Q&A column here .

FWIW, just about everybody in this business, perhaps everybody without exception (I know of none), shares Mike's opinion.

But I still wish he (DW) hadn't kicked me and my other standing room only colleagues out of the session he moderated at ASPA last October. I told everybody what a "show" he put on, then the "show" was sold out! Something about a fire code! Get there early next time I guess.

And a p.s., Mike's (also full) session was outstanding as well. Just like the old ad, when EF Hutton speaks, people listen. We are very fortunate to have his contributions here.

After re-reading the original post, I missed that the partnership is no longer there and agree that it probably is not an ASG.